I'd love to know the complete inside story of how Tom Seaver was chosen to come to the Sox ( I understand why, but whom else could Hemond have chosen).

StatManDu

03-22-2009, 11:30 AM

Here are some other numbers the Cubs could retire:
-1969
-10 for Leon Durham
-2003
-Rafael Palmeiro

soxinem1

03-22-2009, 11:46 AM

I'd love to know the complete inside story of how Tom Seaver was chosen to come to the Sox ( I understand why, but whom else could Hemond have chosen).

Not sure who else was there to be picked, but many were suprised the NYM left him unprotected.

I do remember that Seaver was none to pleased when he found out, as the Mets didn't tell him he was unprotected. When Reinsdorf went to Seaver's hotel room to tell him he was now a member of the White Sox, Seaver asked for identification and called the Mets to verify he wasn't having a joke played on him.

TornLabrum

03-22-2009, 12:59 PM

Here are some other numbers the Cubs could retire:
-1969
-10 for Leon Durham
-2003
-Rafael Palmeiro

Leon Durham's number (like that of Bill Buckner in Boston) should forever be changed to ( ).

Craig Grebeck

03-22-2009, 01:08 PM

This is a stupid comparison.

TDog

03-22-2009, 03:25 PM

Retiring someones number used to be a huge honor reserved for only the elite among a team's elite -- i.e., Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Ted Williams, Stan Musial, Jackie Robinson. The honor was a culmination of long, heroic careers with their teams, although Jackie Robinson packed an incredible amount of heroism into his 10 years, and his heroism was on behalf of baseball as much as it was the Dodgers.

The number-retiring standard has fallen to the point where younger fans don't realize what a big deal it used to be. Ted Williams wrote (or at least John Underwood, his ghost-writer did) in My Turn at Bat about the honor he felt taking the field for the last time in 1960, knowing even before homering in his last turn at bat that no Red Sox player would ever wear his number again. Last summer, some at WSI have discussed retiring Paul Konerko's number.

Of course the White Sox should not retire Tom Seaver's number. He was an all-time great pitcher who pitched for the White Sox, but he was not one of the all-time great White Sox pitchers.

Frankly, it amazes me that a franchise that has experienced as little success as the White Sox should have so many numbers retired. I don't want to argue with any in particular, but I would if the White Sox were to retire numbers of great players who showed up briefly in the White Sox uniform.

thomas35forever

03-22-2009, 04:13 PM

Sure, they can retire his number. Let's make sure we retire Griffey and Santo's numbers while we're at it.

Brian26

03-22-2009, 05:49 PM

Frankly, it amazes me that a franchise that has experienced as little success as the White Sox should have so many numbers retired.

There isn't any correlation between individual accomplishment and team success. There are plenty of examples throughout history of great players stranded on awful teams.

For as much discussion there is about the number of Sox retired numbers (there are only eight after you remove Jackie Robinson's #), you have to remember that the franchise has been in existence for almost 110 years.

There's not one guy on the list that doesn't belong there. The only point I'll ever debate was having Baines' number retired in 1989 after the Texas trade. It became more embarrassing in hindsight when he was still playing in 2001...on the Sox. I'll give the Sox the benefit of the doubt since the late 80s were a tumultuous time to be a Sox fan anyway.

soxfan21

03-22-2009, 07:40 PM

He was a great pitcher and all, even though he won his 300th game with us, I don't think he was with us long enough to warrant having his number retired.

BleacherBandit

03-22-2009, 08:42 PM

There isn't any correlation between individual accomplishment and team success. There are plenty of examples throughout history of great players stranded on awful teams.

For as much discussion there is about the number of Sox retired numbers (there are only eight after you remove Jackie Robinson's #), you have to remember that the franchise has been in existence for almost 110 years.

There's not one guy on the list that doesn't belong there. The only point I'll ever debate was having Baines' number retired in 1989 after the Texas trade. It became more embarrassing in hindsight when he was still playing in 2001...on the Sox. I'll give the Sox the benefit of the doubt since the late 80s were a tumultuous time to be a Sox fan anyway.

Not to offend anyone, but I could argue that Fisk, Baines, and Aparacio shouldn't have their numbers retired by the Sox. But that's just my opinion. In the end, I don't really care about retiring numbers.

I like what the Red Sox have done. They've made requirements for retiring numbers. You have had to have played at least 10 years with the team, be in the Hall of Fame, and finished your career with the Red Sox for your number to be retired. However, they were a little sly by retiring Fisk's number, because he finished his career with us. To get around this, they hired Fisk as some sort of honorary administrator for one day so he'd "officially" end his career in Boston.

TDog

03-22-2009, 08:44 PM

There isn't any correlation between individual accomplishment and team success. There are plenty of examples throughout history of great players stranded on awful teams.

For as much discussion there is about the number of Sox retired numbers (there are only eight after you remove Jackie Robinson's #), you have to remember that the franchise has been in existence for almost 110 years.

There's not one guy on the list that doesn't belong there. The only point I'll ever debate was having Baines' number retired in 1989 after the Texas trade. It became more embarrassing in hindsight when he was still playing in 2001...on the Sox. I'll give the Sox the benefit of the doubt since the late 80s were a tumultuous time to be a Sox fan anyway.

You rather prove my point that retiring a player's number isn't the honor that it used to be.

If you're going to retire a player's number after you have issued it to Lee "Bee Bee" Richard, it's hardly a no-brainer.

chaerulez

03-23-2009, 12:47 AM

This is a stupid comparison.

I agree.

Maddux played basically 8 seasons for the Cubs, won over a 100 games and while he will go down in history as a Brave his 2nd team is the Cubs. It's kind of like how Griffey is a Mariner, but will go down in history with the Reds as his 2nd team. Or David Ortiz with the Twins and Red Sox. Meanwhile Seaver played 2 and a half seasons with the White Sox.

SOX ADDICT '73

03-23-2009, 02:39 AM

I agree.

Maddux played basically 8 seasons for the Cubs, won over a 100 games and while he will go down in history as a Brave his 2nd team is the Cubs. It's kind of like how Griffey is a Mariner, but will go down in history with the Reds as his 2nd team. Or David Ortiz with the Twins and Red Sox. Meanwhile Seaver played 2 and a half seasons with the White Sox.
I think some of you are taking the original poster too seriously. Something tells me that, were it possible, this thread title would be in teal.

TomBradley72

03-23-2009, 11:28 AM

I think it's interesting (but not surprising) that no one in the media has questioned Maddux's number being retired.

He's 13th on the Cubs' all time win list (133 wins) behind Rick Reuschel who won more games and had a lower ERA.

Thome25

03-23-2009, 01:30 PM

nope.

Medford Bobby

03-30-2009, 10:45 PM

Sure, they can retire his number. Let's make sure we retire Griffey and Santo's numbers while we're at it.
Hey...I.m totally on retiring Steve Renko's number too..:scratch:

ChiSoxFan81

03-31-2009, 09:13 AM

It is pretty ridiculous. I can't imagine the Sox letting go of a young talent after a few years, having him come back past his prime for a year or two, and then retiring his number when all his glory was spent with some other team. I get that they want to honor Maddux, and deservedly so, but seriously, why would you want a constant reminder of one of your franchise's most major gaffes?

spiffie

03-31-2009, 10:46 AM

I doubt they would have retired Maddux on his own, but since they are retiring Fergie's number, I'm sure they see no harm in letting Maddux be along for the ride.

raven1

04-01-2009, 06:28 AM

A better Sox comparison than Seaver would be Goose Gossage. Like Maddux with the Cubs he started his career here, had some success with the Sox, and was let go way too early only to have a Hall of Fame career elsewhere. The only mitigating factor is that the Sox were in genuine financial trouble when they let Gossage (and Dent, Downing, Kelly, et al) go while the Cubs have only greed or incompetence to blame.

soxinem1

04-02-2009, 12:47 PM

It is pretty ridiculous. I can't imagine the Sox letting go of a young talent after a few years, having him come back past his prime for a year or two, and then retiring his number when all his glory was spent with some other team. I get that they want to honor Maddux, and deservedly so, but seriously, why would you want a constant reminder of one of your franchise's most major gaffes?

Not entirely true. Maddux left for basically the same money the CHC were offering. It was Maddux who made the decision to split over $400-500K.

I'm not one for defending the cubs, but you have no idea how these things work out, especially with pitchers.

But as far as retiring the numbers of either Maddux or Seaver? Bad idea.

Fergie's number should have been on the post decades ago.

MeteorsSox4367

04-02-2009, 12:55 PM

Seaver was an outstanding pitcher, but I'll always think of him as a Met, not a member of the Sox.

Besides, if No. 41 gets retired, it should be for Bill Simas and not Seaver.

Sox

04-02-2009, 01:23 PM

Seaver was an outstanding pitcher, but I'll always think of him as a Met, not a member of the Sox.

Besides, if No. 41 gets retired, it should be for Bill Simas and not Seaver.

:thumbsup: I agree with you. When I think of Tom Seavers the first thought that comes to mind is the 1969 Mets and not the White Sox.

Tragg

04-02-2009, 03:23 PM

The comparison (Seaver/Sox; Maddux/Cubs) is a strech, but a little hyperbole is necessary to make a legitimate point sometimes.